Does biological evolution occur
without purpose and without God?
This page (assembled and edited by Craig Rusbult) contains excerpts from papers & letters in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (journal of the American Scientific Affiliation) written by John McIntyre, Douglas Hayworth, and David Lahti. It describes two logical fallacies — one made by prominent atheistic evolutionists, and another made by some Christians (including McIntyre) — about non-scientific aspects of biological evolution. It ends with a fascinating story (told with more detail in NABT & Evolution) about a science education organization that temporarily used the first fallacy in their official statement about evolution.
The two fallacies are briefly summarized by Douglas
Hayworth:
• a dismissal of God's existence [by atheistic evolutionists] is not logically warranted on the basis of
evolutionary theory;
• a belief in God does not logically warrant antagonism [by some Christians] to
evolution as science.
The series begins with Evolution's
Fatal Flaw by John McIntyre. (September 1999) (11 k + 8k)
His
introduction, describing the "Character of the Flaw," concludes
that "with
a logical fallacy incorporated into the theory of evolution, conclusions drawn
from it
cannot
be trusted. If conclusions
from
the theory
of evolution
cannot be trusted, then the theory of evolution is worthless — indeed,
a fatal flaw."
He continues by explaining
the flaw:
The logical fallacy appears in the evolutionists'
understanding of evolution itself. This
understanding is expressed, for example, in the popular description of
evolution
by George Gaylord Simpson: "The meaning of evolution is that man is the
result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in
mind." {quoting
G.G. Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, 1953}
Here, the logical fallacy reveals itself immediately. Evolution
is said
to be
a purposeless and materialistic process. Indisputably, evolution is a materialistic
process [because it occurs in the material world and we can learn about it
by using materialistic observations & measurements]. But these materialistic
measurements
can
tell
us
nothing about
the purpose
behind
evolution,
since "purpose" lies
outside the materialistic world. Furthermore, by introducing "purpose,"
Simpson necessarily introduces an agent exercising purpose. Thus, Simpson draws
the conclusion
that there is no agent (God) exercising purpose outside the materialistic universe
from information gained inside the materialistic universe. It is as though
Hamlet concluded that there were no Shakespeare because he could not find Shakespeare
within the confines of the play. ..... [because Simpson] can
describe
evolution
in
the
materialistic
universe without using the concept of purpose, [he claims there is
no
purpose and no God].
To show that this fallacy
is widespread, he quotes
from three more authors:
"The ancient covenant is in pieces; man knows at last
that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he
emerged only by chance." Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity (Random
House, 1972), 180.
"Some shrink from the conclusion that the human
species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical
mechanisms — but this seems to be the message of evolution." D.J.
Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution (Pantheon, 1983),
12–3.
"The evidence of evolution reveals a universe
without design" [is stated in the title of a book by] Richard Dawkins, The
Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without
Design (Norton, 1986). .....
We have a public demonstration of the foolishness
that comes over people when they oppose God — as we observe evolutionists
repeatedly using a logically invalid argument to attack the God of purpose
and design. .....
Since a logically invalid argument must be used
in order to proceed from the materialistic content of evolution to the conclusion
that there is no Maker
of heaven and earth who has a purpose for his creation, Christians, then, should
recognize that no conclusions about purpose or design in the universe can be
based on [the fact that we can construct] a materialistic description of the
universe. Beliefs, such as those in the Apostles' Creed — "I
believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth" — are thus
secure from the conclusions of any argument based on the materialistic content
of
evolution. No longer do Christians need to be concerned about
the content of materialistic evolution, since conclusions about religious beliefs
can be drawn from this
content only through the use of a logically invalid argument. .....
The public has been told that the imperial science
of evolution has triumphed over the Bible. Today, however, this imperial science
must incorporate a logically
invalid
argument to attack the Bible and its purposeful God. The time has come for the
public to recognize that this emperor of science has no clothes.
McIntyre's
Fatal Flaw is a response from Douglas Hayworth. (March 2000) (3 k)
Hayworth agrees that "there is, no doubt, a logical flaw in the four quoted statements cited by McIntyre, and they are statements made by some prominent evolutionary biologists." But he disagrees with McIntyre's title (stating that evolution has a fatal flaw) and conclusion that, quoting McIntyre, "with a logical fallacy incorporated into the theory of evolution, conclusions drawn from it cannot be trusted, and if conclusions from the theory of evolution cannot be trusted, then the theory of evolution is worthless," because this broad conclusion is based on a failure to distinguish between the science of evolution and the scientism that claims evolution as support. Hayworth says,
McIntyre specifically claims that his article addresses a flaw at "the heart of the theory of evolution" and the "understanding of evolution itself." The ASA has repeatedly stressed the importance of clarifying evolution as science and distinguishing different hierarchical levels in the meaning of the term "evolution." McIntyre's piece muddies these distinctions. What meaning is intended in the title? The implication made in the title, opening sentence, and tone of the overall article seems quite different from what is actually delivered. In fact, all aspects of evolution as science (micro-, macro-, common ancestry, that is, what good scientists consider to be the "heart of evolutionary theory") come through unscathed by McIntyre's attack. Had the article been directed more precisely and clearly at scientism, then the title of the article could be forgiven as poetic license. .....
Despite my problems
with the article, I believe McIntyre provides a useful reminder of what
many others have shown before: a dismissal of God's
existence is not logically warranted on the basis of evolutionary theory. As
an equally useful reminder for Christians, I would add that a belief
in God does not logically warrant antagonism to evolution as science. Let's
be more precise in our finger pointing and less carried away by
catchy titles. [emphasis added by editor]
One
Spiritual Danger in Creationism: Drawing a Red Herring Across a Track by
David Lahti, is more than a response — it's a full essay, with excellent
quality, about important ideas. (June 2000) (12 k)
... The phrase "red herring" denotes the practice in reasoning or debate of commencing an argument toward one conclusion, but at some point subtly veering from this and concluding something else entirely. This is a logical fallacy, an error in reasoning.
The "red herring" figures in a particular
form of argument commonly advanced by creationists. ... The form of argument
is as follows:
• Premise 1: Particular proponents of biological
evolution (A, B, etc.) say x or incorporate x in their understanding of the concept
of evolution.
• Premise 2: x is repudiated by Christianity
or is scientifically unfounded.
• Conclusion: Evolution is repudiated by Christianity
or is scientifically unfounded.
We start with the premises on the path to discussing
the merits of A's and B's view x. This is called into question, and the reasonable
conclusion would be that A and B are wrong in this area. However, instead of
arriving there, the "red herring" of biological evolution is dragged
across the path and leads the reader or hearer astray. The strategy is to discredit
evolution by showing that a particular view x is wrong, without demonstrating
any necessary connection (whether logical, conceptual, or empirical) between
x and evolution.
A recent example of the use of this strategy is
an argument by John McIntyre, which can be summarized as follows (in his words):
• Premise 1: "A consensus, then, appears
to have developed among the leaders of evolution," the roster of which includes,
but is not limited to: Richard Dawkins, Douglas Futuyma, Jacques Monod, and
G.G.
Simpson. By these people "evolution is said to be a purposeless and
materialistic
process."
• Premise 2: "The absence of the designer
within the materialistic universe cannot logically lead to a conclusion that
there is no designer outside the materialistic universe." Again, "...
materialistic measurements can tell us nothing about the purpose behind evolution,
since 'purpose' lies outside the materialistic world."
McIntyre provides clear support for both of the premises
of this argument (the first in terms of the four people enumerated above). We
are being led down a logical path, and the reasonable destination is that "the
conclusion that evolution is purposeless is worthless." The author does
in fact state this, and does not commit a fallacy by doing so. Such a conclusion
follows from his second premise alone. ... However, this is not the main conclusion
McIntyre offers from the above premises. Instead, it is the following:
• Conclusion: "Correspondingly, with a
logical fallacy incorporated into the theory of evolution, conclusions drawn
from it cannot be trusted. If conclusions from the theory of evolution cannot
be trusted, then the theory of evolution is worthless — indeed, a fatal
flaw."
From discussing views of particular evolutionists,
we have been subtly led astray by a red herring drawn across the track. We suddenly
find ourselves facing the momentous conclusion that the theory of evolution is
worthless, that "this emperor of science has no clothes."
The reason why this particular reasoning is a
red herring and therefore fallacious is because there is no necessary connection
between the views of these particular people and biological evolution per se. The biological concept of evolution is not enslaved to the views of any or
all evolutionists, much less a selected group of them. If, on the other hand,
this type of argumentation were valid, a Christian biologist could respond
to a citation of G.G. Simpson and Richard Dawkins by enlisting such giants
of evolutionary biology as Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, both
of whom have asserted their beliefs in a personal God and a divine purpose
behind the evolutionary process. The Nobel prize-winning Ilya Prigogine could
be used to counter-balance Jacque Monod on the subject of chance. Finally,
W.T. Keeton and J.L. Gould's excellent introduction to evolutionary biology,
which asserts that any attempt to make conclusions about the existence of God
from scientific premises is a fallacy, could serve as a counterpoise to Futuyma's
text. .....
A stream of prominent scientists and incisive quotes
can therefore be provided to show that many believe in a harmony between biological
evolution and the idea of divine purpose. But, would these counterexamples to
the "purposeless" view do anything to support the concept of biological
evolution, and therefore preserve confidence in evolutionary biology?
In fact, nothing of the sort is accomplished by appealing
to the claims of particular biologists, because science (thankfully) does not
work that way. In science, there are no "leaders" in the field, in
the sense of people who dictate what others should think. Scientific concepts
and hypotheses and conclusions are public domain, to be discussed, refuted, or
corroborated by any individual on earth who is able and inclined to do the necessary
work. ... Scientists are almost always interested in discussing aspects not primarily
of someone's thought, but of the external world. A scientific publication that
happens to conclude in opposition to a particular hypothesis focuses on the hypothesis,
never (if it is worthy) on people. To ignore or abandon this central feature
of science misjudges the entire nature and worth of the enterprise.
Science, as properly practiced, is never a matter
of authority. ... Scientific propositions stand on their own logical and empirical
feet, not on the shoulders of any individual or group, no matter how illustrious.
This particular species of red herring, where
a system of thought is said to be refuted when in fact only the views of particular
people have been, is of course not peculiar to creationists. In addition, no
claim is being made here that this is the most significant problem with creationism,
nor is it even a necessary part of creationism. To highlight a red herring
in a creationist argument certainly does not undermine creationism, even if
that fallacy often happens to be found in defense of such a position. .....
Lahti then describes two
spiritual dangers (for apologetics & evangelism) when this "red
herring" fallacy is used by Christians:
First, most Christians are aware that
this precise fallacy has been committed throughout modern times in an attempt
to discredit Christianity. ... [As a defense] one must divorce the opinions
or actions of particular Christians from the tenets of Christianity and the
person of
Christ. Our belief system and way of life revolve around Jesus alone as far
as humans are concerned, and him precisely because he was not merely human. Whenever
creationists counsel other Christians to use the red herring strategy in
their defense of a particular interpretation of Genesis, they are in effect
endorsing it as a valid mode of argument not only for the Christian, but
for the non-Christian. If the red herring is perceived to work against evolution,
it will be perceived to work against Christianity, and then the defense of
the faith has been undermined. .....
Second, this particular kind of red herring, when
used in the context of creationism, harms the evangelistic enterprise. As the
biblical quotation at the beginning of this paper illustrates [Titus 2:7-8, "In
everything set them an example by doing what is good ... so they have nothing
bad to say about us"], Christians are called to have integrity in their
teaching and speech for the sake of the nonbeliever. ... The attempt by creationists
to dissolve opposition to Christianity by removing the intellectual obstacle
of evolution with the red herring strategy, is likely to reflect badly on Christianity
as a whole. ... Others will notice the unfairness and be repulsed from our faith.
Again, regardless of how widespread the red herring fallacy
is in creationist argumentation, it is a danger that is extrinsic, rather than
intrinsic, to the doctrine of creationism itself. In other words, it is not claimed
here to be a "fatal flaw" of creationism, but simply a flaw in some
creationist argumentation. It is not even claimed here to be the most serious
flaw in such argumentation. Nevertheless, besides the illogic of it, the spiritual
danger that it poses is significant enough for critical mention to be made of
it, and for a plea to be made that the fallacy be carefully excluded from any
future creationist writing or argument. Incidentally, it may be the case that
the ability of creationists to defend their position rationally may suffer if
this tool is not available to them. However, this cannot be a major concern to
anyone seriously in pursuit of the truth of the matter. A victory achieved without
intellectual integrity would be a hollow one indeed, especially for a Christian.
[editor's note: In my opinion, Lahti's page is "the
best of this bunch" and I encourage you to read all of it, including
the text (and references) omitted in my condensation above.]
In a response (December
2000, 2 k) McIntyre agrees with Lahti's criticism,
but then adds an interesting question and illustration:
... In that article I had presented
the statements of four evolutionists which included the logical fallacy that
evolution
has
no purpose. I had then drawn the conclusion that since evolution contained
a logical fallacy, that the theory of evolution was worthless.
Lahti makes the observation that "the reason why this particular reasoning
is a red herring and therefore fallacious is because there is no necessary
connection between the views of these particular people and biological evolution
per se." Lahti's observation that the validity of the theory of evolution
does not depend on the opinions of particular people is certainly correct. But his observation raises an interesting problem. How many evolutionists have
to believe that the theory of evolution is purposeless (with a fatal flaw)
for the theory of evolution to be considered to be purposeless?
Until September 1997, the National Association
of Biology Teachers (NABT) and the National Academy of Sciences defined evolution
as "an unsupervised,
impersonal, unpredictable and natural process." This definition
of evolution incorporates the fatal flaw since it says that evolution is unsupervised
and
impersonal. In September 1997, the Board of the NABT deleted the words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" from
the definition of evolution, thereby removing the logical fallacy from the
definition. However, the vote was divisive; the first vote of the Board was
against the deletion of the words (see my Letter in the June 2000 PSCF for
an account of the proceedings). And, I have since read that there is a movement
among some evolutionists to reverse the vote. Evidently, a large number of
evolutionists want to include the logical fallacy within the definition of
evolution. If the logical fallacy again becomes an official part of evolution
(as it did until 1997), evolution would, again, have a fatal flaw.
comments from the editor: Could the statement
by NABT cause their claim about evolution — that it's an "unsupervised" process,
with a lack of purpose — to become
"an official part of
evolution"? It seems that here, as in his postmodern analysis of
NABT's actions below (where he says "scientists obtain their results
according to where the power is, ... logic is irrelevant"), McIntyre
is making
a claim that exceeds its logical support.
As in his response to Lahti,
when responding
to Hayworth earlier (June
2000, 5 k), McIntyre agrees with Hayworth's criticism, then describes
the
actions
of NABT:
Hayworth makes the valid observation that the "fatal flaw" in the paper is not concerned with the science of evolution itself. Rather, it is concerned with the logical fallacy of statements by evolutionists concerning the meaning of evolution. And yet, the article is titled, "Evolution's Fatal Flaw." .....
The "fatal flaw" has not just been
restricted to popular books [as in the four statements quoted in his paper,
from Simpson,
Monod, Futuyma, Dawkins]. The
official definition of evolution by the National Association of Biology Teachers
(NABT) in 1996 was: "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of
evolution, an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process
..." This official definition included the words, "impersonal" and "unsupervised" so
that the official definition of the NABT also contained the "fatal flaw" [of "defining
evolution as a process without a purpose"].
However, as reported in the September 1999 issue
of the Scientific American, historian Huston Smith and philosopher Alvin Plantinga
were able to gain the
attention of the NABT and inform them of the logical fallacy. Now the story becomes
almost hilarious. In the fall of 1997, according to Scientific American, the
Board of the NABT met to consider deleting the words, "unsupervised" and "impersonal," from
the "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" in order "to save
biology teachers the grief of having to defend these words from the attacks of
the creationists." (No mention of the logical fallacy of the words; the
sole reason for changing the Statement was the attacks by the creationists.) Surprisingly, the Board voted down the proposal for the deletion of the words
despite the logical fallacy the words introduced. But, then the Board reversed
itself for the sake of good "public relations."
Here is an example of postmodernism with a vengeance. In voting down the deletion of the two words, logic was flouted to obtain an
invalid philosophical conclusion. But then the decision was reversed because of the application of power (public
relations). As the postmodernists have claimed, scientists obtain their results
according to where the power is. Matters, such as logic, are irrelevant. Fortunately,
through their contortions with logic and power, the Board of the NABT arrived
at the proper conclusion about the definition of evolution.
editor's comment: These observations about postmodernism
(in evolutionary science) have some validity, but are overstated.
In a strangely triumphalist
essay entitled "We
Won" (September 1999, 4 k),
John McIntyre seems very happy that:
"Godless" evolution is dead! After
seven score years of relentless Christian pressure, an authoritative scientific
voice, The National Academy of Sciences [NAS], has withdrawn the claim [formerly
in its book about evolution, in an appendix containing the statement of NABT]
that "evolution is an unsupervised, impersonal process." Critics
of Christianity can no longer assert that evolution denies the possibility
of a personal God supervising the process of evolution. ...
In conclusion, the content of biological evolution
is no longer officially claimed to be impersonal and unsupervised. Thus, the
God of the Bible is no longer officially challenged by biological evolution. As a consequence, when opposing textbooks continue to claim that evolution is
impersonal and unsupervised, Christians need only point to the definition of
evolution [by NABT/NAS] that does not include this claim. The removal of such
textbooks from the curriculum should naturally follow. The Christian belief in
a personal God who supervises the processes of creation will, then, no longer
be challenged by evolution.
comment by editor: McIntyre is giving far too
much power to a mere statement by NABT (cited by NAS) because, whether or
not NABT gives their official consent, some individuals will continue in
their
nonscientific
claim
that — if
we mistakenly assume "natural" means "without God" — the
scientific success of evolution (or any other scientific theory involving
only natural process?) shows that God does not exist.